> Cocoa is complete and utter crap... Full stop! I don't see why Apple
dropped the true and tested Apple toolbox over some unproven garbage
named after a caffeine plant.
I agree (although some will argue about "unproven"), but what makes us
happy and productive is not necessarily the same that makes NeXT, I mean
Apple, make money. There are both marketing reasons and political reasons.
> - don't make improvements to MacOS 9.2.2+ ... What was wrong with
waitnextevent?? I run 10.4.11 and it runs like a three legged dog on my
dual G4 (max ram/running 3xscsi 160 HDs). There is no lag of any kind in 9.
OS9 is indeed a LOT faster than OSX. I think OS9 was too good. All it
needed was memory protection, and there are rumors that Apple had that
working in-house. But Apple does not make money from a finished product
that doesn't need improvements!
And to be fair, OS9 had been an oddball all the time, and the rest of
the industry was pushing it to conform. Apple was bleeding and needed to
win market shares. Critical players demanded a Unix core. Apple needed
to show BIG changes, not fixes on OS9.
> I, myself would rather use 64bit Carbon any day compared to
Objective-C rubbish.
Me too, but we are not vital to Apple. We don't make Apple earn
millions. If you are Adobe or Microsoft, then you get what you want. We
have two options: either get take what Apple makes, or we fix it
ourselves. Don't underrate the power you have yourself. (Especially if
you can find and manage a team to work with.)
> - Reinvent the wheel over and over again.
That is indeed a headache that Apple puts us into over and over again.
But there are reasons. Apple must be moving, and they have more interest
in promoting new development than support of old products.
> Can you see why Apple doesn't want 64 bit carbon.... it’s because
Objective-C nerds have an ego much like all other forms of programmers
that I've come across... all stating that each of their technologies is
the be all in all things.... what a joke!
All framework or language lobbyists do that, they hype their stuff a lot.
I think there are also marketing/political reasons. (1) Microsoft made
.NET, so Apple must show off something similar. Thus, Cocoa drives the
stock market better than Carbon alone. (2) Cocoa is not only a custom
API but also a special language, which might cause more Mac only apps to
be written.
So whether Cocoa is productive or not is not even relevant!
> Long live carbon. Long live Classic, and for those of you that
believe in what I say, give us a yell.
I have said this before, but I think it is worth repeating. Remember
that we do not have to obey Apple's every whim. They have their reasons,
we have ours. There is no point to get angry on Apple when they cause us
problems. Instead, we should fix the problems the best way we can.
We can make our own more or less Carbon-like layer on top of Cocoa. Once
we have done that, Carbon64 is in our hands until Apple dumps Cocoa -
and then we rewrite it again! I don't even think it would be terribly
hard to do. The big problem is to master Cocoa enough to do it. I have
seen much bigger problems being solved as open source projects. So no panic.
/Ingemar
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Carbon-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/carbon-dev/email@hidden
